Cer10Death:It is simple that this right has been woefully misinterpreted for decades. The "but it says so right there in the Constitution" is nonsense. It is a living document, with plenty of stuff in it we no longer need, like the 3rd Amendment and the whole returning slaves to their owners thingie. Literalists are tarded the world over, from sekrit muslins to paranoid Murricans. Your need and "right" to feel like a macho package does not trump the right of me to be relatively safe in a school.>

I/m certain that your Estrogen-laden response to my post will serve you well as you argue your opinion to the SCOTUS. Oh wait, that argument has already been made and failed with SCOTS affirm the right to bear arms. You're emotionally reacting to a purely analytical and point of fact. Well, as I said. Change the Constitution. It doesn't matter what you believe. Doesn't matter what I believe. Stop crying and biatching about your safety. If you think that any government will keep you safe, you're delusional. Here it is: If you give a shiat about it as much as you say you do, do something about it. Go ahead and see if you can change the Constitution. It really is that easy. They did it for civil rights, suffrage, etc.. or you can simply continue to be a gas bag here on Fark.

Um, I'm a pussy because assault rifles for madmen was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700s and the Constitution changes with the times? And that SCOTUS members are sometimes right-wing dolts? And that, generally speaking, America is a fairly safe and pleasant place compared to, say, Somalia? Your tard precedes you.

We're possibly looking at the dawn of a new era in firearms. The terms "assault" and "tactical" have become politically charged buzzwords, and many are calling for changes. Well, I think I've found the perfect change. It's no longer an "assault" style rifle. I present...the Sport Utility Carbine.

mbillips:Spade: mbillips: OK, not banned, regulated under the NFA. Which is fine, if it were up to me, any semi-auto with a detachable mag, and any mag over 10 rounds, would be an NFA item, available with a Form 3. Ditto .50 BMG weapons and the equivalent. I'd also make the feds start issuing machine-gun manufacture permits again, so I could get my PPSh working instead of being a demilled parts kit.

Why 10 rounds? What metric did you use to come up with this? Why not 11?

Unless you're going to ban all semi-auto pistols, it's a reasonable, if arbitrary limitation for a self-defense weapon. I'd be OK with 5 rounds for center-fire rifles, and fixed mags only, but you'd get too much howling from AR shooters. Plus my Lee-Enfield would be out of compliance.

Exactly, it's arbitrary. So it can be changed at any time to be 5 or 3, or 1. Or 0.

Personally I prefer my stuff to be based on grounded facts not, "Oh, well, this sounds 'bout right."

Super Chronic:dr-shotgun: Ahh, another post about the history, purpose and design intent of the AR-15, from someone who has most likely never actually fired one.....Of course, that doesn't matter. I'm just a "gun nut." Clearly the people who have zero experience with firearms, who's only knowledge of the subject was acquired through movies, TV shows and 2 weeks of internetting know what is best for self defense.

Translation: "unless you're a gun fetishist like me, who creams his shorts just thinking about that sweet, sweet, sulfurous aroma of a freshly fired Bushmaster, your views are invalid." Way to rule out the other side of a debate without even having to think about it first. News flash: a lot of stuff people know, they learned by reading. You might not be familiar with that concept but it's pretty commonplace.

Self-education is only a valid method of learning when the source information is accurate.

Of course, the intrinsic problem with a gun debate is that the vast majority of people who know anything about the technology and utility are on the pro-gun side, while the anti-gun side is generally chocked full of people who's intrinsic distaste for firearms means that they know little to nothing about them.

I do like how your reply ignores the fact that I presented a number of perfectly valid reasons why an AR-15 is a weapon that is actually quite well suited for self-defense though.

Other than that their main purpose is to allow a criminal to fire a handgun in an urban environment without drawing attention?

Please substantiate this assertion.

This is the weirdest of the many weird NRA crusades, right up there with Teflon-coated bullets.

Are you aware of the purpose of coating a bullet in polytetrafluoroethylene?

As a police round, to allow the use of harder bullet alloys that can better penetrate hard surfaces like windshields, car doors....and soft body armor. The NRA wanted them sold to the general public, rather than regulated as a police-only item.

Except that the Teflon coating reduced penetration of Kevlar. And the NRA never wanted them sold to the public. What the NRA actually did was help write up the legislation that prevented their sale to the public. What the NRA was opposed to was a general ban on rounds capable of piercing body armor because, surprise, that's just about everything fired from a rifle and almost nothing fired from a handgun.

Thunderpipes:Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE's permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Good luck with that. A big fark you, and no.

Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

The Southern Dandy:The worst school shooting in the USA, VA Tech, the shooter reloaded several times, and the proposed ban wouldn't have applied to any of the weapons he used.

Thats because he had large numbers of detachable boxes with him, and could swap them much faster than reloading an internal magazine. A smarter law would require a retarding mechanism on magazine releases as well.

Wolf_Blitzer:The_Sponge: ElBarto79: I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.

And yet....gang members in CA and IL are still doing that, despite tough gun laws.

Its a good thing there aren't nearby states where those tough laws can be easily circumvented.

Shouldn;t those surrounding states with lax gun laws have crime on par if not higher than the place where weapons are restricted?

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban

You mean the failure of the ban list to be long enough?

or its failure by attempting to appease zealots by grandfathering weapons currently owned.

Wolf_Blitzer:POO_FLINGA: With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn't need any massive magazines or custom weapons.The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can't lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn't matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized."

So if we want the capacity limit to actually matter we have to place restrictions on number of magazines owned, or install a mechanism to slow magazine release/replacement. Thank you for pointing this out.

I just pointed out the article. It was written by a lefty and I am not against that but the points made in the article shut down a lot of gripe. I see so much on this "AR-15" issue that I have yet to hear about any other rifles. Nobody talks about AK-47 type rifles or anything else that is a favorite by the media.

But the sad fact is I haven't seen any factual evidence that any rifles were used in any of the massacres. I only hear of the pistols and why not they are easy to conceal, easy to carry and present a better element of surprise. I cropped that part of the article but no media is talking about handgun limitations. Maybe the answer isn't having greater restrictions on rifles that are not part of the problem but maybe adding more loops to the smallest and easily the most used of the bunch, the handgun.

ha-ha-guy:POO_FLINGA: With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn't need any massive magazines or custom weapons.The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can't lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn't matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized."

Cho also had multiple guns IIRC. That's the dirty secret to this thing, a back pack full of preloaded Glocks means no reloading issues. Also as you said preloaded magazines and spending a month practicing magazine swaps will work nicely. For revolvers there are plenty of speed load options.

Basically walk into a classroom, fire until one pistols is dry, grab the next one, proceed until everyone is dead. Reload all weapons and move on. All you've really done is cost the shooter more money, but any idiot can get 5 grand for a personal loan and stock up. After all they plan on dying or fleeing, so why do they give a fark about the loan repayment?

He did have multiple hand guns but in numeral terms, just two of them. Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun. In a backpack, he carried several chains, locks, a hammer, a knife, two handguns with nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines, and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

jimmythrust:Um, I'm a pussy because assault rifles for madmen was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700s and the Constitution changes with the times? And that SCOTUS members are sometimes right-wing dolts? And that, generally speaking, America is a fairly safe and pleasant place compared to, say, Somalia? Your tard precedes you.

The 2nd amendment hasn't changed since 1791. The USA is a fairly free place compared to say, North Korea, because the people are armed.

Dimensio:Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

Then provide better funding for the ATF. How much do you think the NRA's solution of putting an armed guard in every possible place a shooting might happen would cost?

Dimensio:Thunderpipes: Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE's permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Good luck with that. A big fark you, and no.

Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

A win for Democrats again. "We need 100 billion more in funding for the ATF, more brown shirts to go house to house and check for illegal weapons".

How soon until the 4th amendment is then taken away so the Man can enforce the gun bans?

Thunderpipes:inner ted: xtrc8u: Those in favor of "banning" military rifles:I have a Remington 700. Bolt action rifle. Is it a military rifle? Should it be banned?Have fun with this, FARK.

simple

does the magazine hold more than 10 rounds?

if "yes" - then yes to both your questions

ta daa

It is all relative. Founding fathers were talking about the very latest weapons, rifles that may shoot a few times a minute. The amazing thing about the founding fathers is that they were very bright people, and the Constitution still has every reason to apply today. back in their days, there were still cannon around, your everyday Joe could not afford one of those. Liberals main goals seem to be constant erosion of the Constitution. Why?

aside from your last line of obvious troll bait - there is an interesting point here: not whether the 'everyday Joe' could afford the most advanced weaponry, but were they ALLOWED to posses it? this applies from ancient society where the most advanced weapon was a rock or stick (were those regulated?) to bow & arrow and swords (which were most assuredly regulated in varying degrees by various ruling parties)

so we are still having the same discussion: should the citizens be allowed access to all weaponry? of course not - we draw lines of what and how much can go to whom and how often.

pedrop357:Benjamin Orr: So he would have had to reload a few more times? He fired over a hundred shots according to several sources.

Are you saying he would not have brought additional magazines? Are you saying that he would not have used the handguns if he ran out of AR15 ammo?

I wasn't arguing with you (I think), I don't think reducing magazine capacity will do anything to stop mass shootings.

Just adding to what I thought your point was by saying that the Newtown shooting is an even less relevant example of magazine capacity mattering. He reloaded at least 3 times that we know of, but used 30 round magazines. had he been limited to 10 round magazines, he may have had to being more OR simply been more conservative with his ammo. He shot most the victims multiple times, but could have resorted to 1 or 2 per victim and accomplished the same thing with 10 round magazines.Mag capacity is meaningless for stopping shootings or even reducing their body county.

In a perfect (to them), gun-control-no-magazines-over-10-rounds-world, he brings 4x 10 round magazines in, shoots everyone twice and 'only' kills 20; 6 adults, 14 children. Or he shoots every other person twice and still manages 26. I think the gun control groups would just push more bans.

ok... my mistake. I took your comment as meaning that you supported magazine restrictions. For Newton people keep acting like he did this all in 2 minutes (never mind the real timelines) and that he never reloaded because of the military AR15.

The Gifford shooter dropped the extra magazine when trying to reload and got hit by a chair (after a bystander took the dropped magazine) so it can happen.. just not as likely as some people would like you to believe.

jimmythrust:Um, I'm a pussy because assault rifles for madmen was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700s and the Constitution changes with the times? And that SCOTUS members are sometimes right-wing dolts? And that, generally speaking, America is a fairly safe and pleasant place compared to, say, Somalia? Your tard precedes you.

Yup, and the 1st was not intended for perverts to have cameras, internet connections and computers. Time for a background check on cameras, computers, internet connections, and waiting period to upload, you know to prevent the distribution of child porn.

Wolf_Blitzer:Dimensio: Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

Then provide better funding for the ATF. How much do you think the NRA's solution of putting an armed guard in every possible place a shooting might happen would cost?

The stupidity of the National Rifle Association's proposal is not an excuse for Senator Feinstein to produce an equally (or more) stupid proposal.

paygun:Thunderpipes: Do you guys really think hauling legal gun owners in to be booked and fingerprinted and forced to pay money is a good idea? Really?

From what I've seen, yes. They believe owning guns is immoral and the government should enforce their morality.

This will backfire. This will be the first political mistake in the last 5 years from the Democrats. Everything they have done from class warfare to more free stuff has gotten them votes. I think hauling in legal gun owners will backfire badly, I really do. What is worse, it will do absolutely nothing to stop shootings, nothing.

The Southern Dandy:jimmythrust:Um, I'm a pussy because assault rifles for madmen was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700s and the Constitution changes with the times? And that SCOTUS members are sometimes right-wing dolts? And that, generally speaking, America is a fairly safe and pleasant place compared to, say, Somalia? Your tard precedes you.

The 2nd amendment hasn't changed since 1791. The USA is a fairly free place compared to say, North Korea, because the people are armed.

Its free because the people can vote. The last time a large number of armed people tried to disregard the results of an election, it ended badly for them.

The Southern Dandy:jimmythrust:Um, I'm a pussy because assault rifles for madmen was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700s and the Constitution changes with the times? And that SCOTUS members are sometimes right-wing dolts? And that, generally speaking, America is a fairly safe and pleasant place compared to, say, Somalia? Your tard precedes you.

The 2nd amendment hasn't changed since 1791. The USA is a fairly free place compared to say, North Korea, because the people are armed.

Please show evidence of when an American with an assault rifle has protected anyone's freedom? Let's see, Charles Whitman, Columbine, VA Tech, Giffords...FREEDOM assured!

The problem with constitutional literalists is the same as with Bible and Koran literalists.

Dimensio:Wolf_Blitzer: Dimensio: Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

Then provide better funding for the ATF. How much do you think the NRA's solution of putting an armed guard in every possible place a shooting might happen would cost?

The stupidity of the National Rifle Association's proposal is not an excuse for Senator Feinstein to produce an equally (or more) stupid proposal.

I did some research, and around the country, something on the order of 50-60% of schools already have Police Officers that either are in their schools daily, or at least several times a week. These Community Resource Officers or whatever the schools call them are generally well received and don't seem to be an issue with the kiddies NOT doing illegal shiat...

The All-Powerful Atheismo:The Southern Dandy:A militia keeping a state free isn't about shooting at deer or burglars. It's about fighting a world class military power like England, or the USA. Assault rifles are the very least you would need to fight such an opponent.

Actually assault rifles wouldn't be nearly enough and you know it.

Therefore, people should be allowed to have tanks and helicopters.

there is some real farking idiots in this thread.

You are allowed to have tanks and helicopters. You can even have fighter planes and bombers.

Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

Benjamin Orr:dofus: Benjamin Orr: What kind of spread do you really think that a shotgun has? Especially at ranges inside of a house?

Guessing: 18" barrel, no choke, 20' to target... about 15" to 20"

Well... no choke usually means sawed off and needing a NFA tax stamp to be legal. So I guess you mean a modified/small choke. Assuming your generous estimates are correct and you are using birdshot... are you still saying you don't really need to aim?

Of course not. I didn't say you don't need to aim, I said you don't have to worry about aiming as much.

As for legal or not, the gun has been inspected going through Canadian Customs and they didn't have a problem with it. I haven't messed with it in years. It's been cleaned, lubed and kept in a case all this time.

/I live in an area where most people don't even bother to lock their houses,//I don't anticipate putting any of this to the test any time soon.

mbillips:Yeah, it would force you to reload every 10 rounds, creating more opportunity to escape/fight back for spree victims. Kind of a minor change, but not nothing.

Not if the reload speed is the same of faster than the rate of fire. Then you're talking about a very small fraction of a second, and you really can't make a decent argument for that amount of time being an advantage. The best argument I've seen (and I don't think it's a great one) is that it's a chance for a weapon malfunction. That's possible, yes, but my experience with guns leads me to think that if you're hoping for a malfunction to stop a shooter, it's about as likely to occur at any time, not just during a mag change.

/I'm well aware that a somewhat recent shooting was stopped when a gun jammed on a reload. I'm saying that the jam could just as easily happened at any time.

pedrop357:pedrop357:Mag capacity is meaningless for stopping shootings or even reducing their body county.had he been limited to 10 round magazines, he may have had to being bring more

Preview should be my friend.

I often get ridiculed by friends because I carry a 1911-type firearm and use them in classes. Maximum capacity is 10 rounds with extended magazines. I keep up with the other shooters who bring their Glock 17s or 19s or similar with their 17+ round magazines, I just have to carry more magazines and reload more often. I can reload the ol' girl in under 2 seconds.

LasersHurt:What the Fark Wizzbang: Nope, just ones with fixed or detachable magazines that handle more than 10 rounds. Which is......oh......a shiat ton of them.

And yet he's still wrong, she does not want to ban private ownership of all semi-auto weapons.

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

Dimensio:Wolf_Blitzer: Dimensio: Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

Then provide better funding for the ATF. How much do you think the NRA's solution of putting an armed guard in every possible place a shooting might happen would cost?

The stupidity of the National Rifle Association's proposal is not an excuse for Senator Feinstein to produce an equally (or more) stupid proposal.

If it is a stupid proposal, why do Obama's children have armed protection at their school? Why do many rich and powerful people have their children in schools with armed security personnel? Another case of good enough for them, the peasants cannot have it.

BigNumber12:Seriously. I can't imagine a group of determined individuals using low-tech rifles and homemade explosives ever being able to cause any sort of difficulty for the American or Soviet militaries. Now that things like stealth bombers and SSBNs exist, asymmetric guerrilla resistance will never be able to deter a modern military!

Can you see the difference between making a war expensive enough for an invading power that they fark off and go home and overthrowing a tyrannical state from within? You may just be arguing with something I didn't say, because it would be a lot easier than refuting what I actually did.

Benjamin Orr:ok... my mistake. I took your comment as meaning that you supported magazine restrictions. For Newton people keep acting like he did this all in 2 minutes (never mind the real timelines) and that he never reloaded because of the military AR15.

The Gifford shooter dropped the extra magazine when trying to reload and got hit by a chair (after a bystander took the dropped magazine) so it can happen.. just not as likely as some people would like you to believe.

14 minutes is the number I've seen for the Newtown shooting. I think I could kill 26 people with a 7 shot .357, reloading 5 times even with just loose bullets in my pocket.

They use Tucson because it's basically the only time a shooter's need to stop and reload mattered.The only reason I think Aurora wasn't worse is because he used a craptastic magazine that caused his gun to jam. Some people think clearing a jam and just reloading are similar in time and effort. If he had just used 10 round magazines and practiced swapping them out, it could have been a lot worse.

The only reason I can think of that they want to ban magazines over 10 round is that it sounds 'reasonable' to people who don't understand that magazines can be swapped quickly, AND it's a starting point to ban under 10 rounds later.

Wolf_Blitzer:The Southern Dandy: jimmythrust:Um, I'm a pussy because assault rifles for madmen was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700s and the Constitution changes with the times? And that SCOTUS members are sometimes right-wing dolts? And that, generally speaking, America is a fairly safe and pleasant place compared to, say, Somalia? Your tard precedes you.

The 2nd amendment hasn't changed since 1791. The USA is a fairly free place compared to say, North Korea, because the people are armed.

Its free because the people can vote. The last time a large number of armed people tried to disregard the results of an election, it ended badly for them.

When wondering why some people buy these weapons, don't forget the "money for nothing" crowd. Why are shows like storage wars or pawn stars popular? Because people love the thought of getting dollars for something they bought for pennies.

There are plenty of people who bought these things hoping a ban will triple their value. It's like a lottery ticket.

/in '86 you could by a full auto M-16 for around $850. Congress acted, and now the same gun would set you back around $30,000. That's a lot of profit just for owning something before the ban.//worse case is, they hold their value and are fun to own (which is more than you can say for many investments).

Um, I'm a pussy because assault rifles for madmen was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700s and the Constitution changes with the times? And that SCOTUS members are sometimes right-wing dolts? And that, generally speaking, America is a fairly safe and pleasant place compared to, say, Somalia? Your tard precedes you.

I didn't call you any such thing. I simply gave a call to action. Every call for social change occurs from several people who are willing to give everything to do so. Are you that person?

I didn't, in anyway, negate or even try to negate your opinion. I'm not a Right-wing nut job nor a liberal pussy and it doesn't matter even if I was. There is no right or wrong in what I wrote. Or in what you wrote. It just is and at this point, the right to bear arms is indisputable. It is the law of the land and SCOTUS has affirmed it as such.

I've clearly asserted that my opinion simply doesn't matter until such time that the Constitution is hereby amended. So, what are you waiting for??? Get off your high horse and change the World for what you believe in. I'm not being sarcastic in the least. We do a lot of talk in this country and very little doing.

You'll say "and what about you?" I don't feel anything about it, to be honest. It just is until it is changed.

And you introduced the notion of "machismo" to the conversation, so back at you. I was simply responding to that.

derpy:cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power.".

So, an AR-15 is attractive the same sort of douche that would buy a Corvette. Or a Hummer.

Got it.

Nice try. I don't own a Hummer or a Corvette, just a Ford Focus. I didn't get an AR-15 because it looks cool and makes me feel tough; I bought it because it's fun. If having fun makes me a douche, I guess you win.